Search RPD Archives
[rpd] New Policy Proposal Received - "Multihoming not required for ASN (AFPUB-2019-ASN-DRAFT01)"
JORDI PALET MARTINEZ
jordi.palet at consulintel.es
Fri Mar 29 19:34:56 UTC 2019
Sorry to join late to the conversation, a bit busy all the week.
You got the point in this thread.
For me, at least in Spanish, multihoming is having two upstreams.
If you need to connect to multiple ASs (multiple peers), you can still do that being single-homed.
That's why I provide two options as requirements to get an ASN:
7.4.1 Be a multihomed site or
7.4.2 Have the need to interconnect with other AS.
It is a matter of wording maybe, just to make it more clear?
El 29/3/19 8:14, "Jaco Kroon" <jaco at uls.co.za> escribió:
On 2019/03/28 15:44, Fernando Frediani wrote:
> Well yes that we all know works technically but that's not the only
> Now a days most companies will not be able to assign sufficient
> resources to a downstream customers so having their own PI space makes
> it more flexible and they can have as many necessary for their full
I am aware of multiple customers that only have addresses from Afrinic
but no ASN, and their upstreams simply point statics at them which they
then advertise forward. The customer can move ISP by having new ISP do
same and old ISP dropping the static, or even multi-homing by having
both point statics.
The motivation here for an ASN would be so that if a link fails, so does
BGP and traffic re-routes.
> Other reasons are: in many places you may not have access to two
> providers but you may still need to have the PI space for example to
> serve the local area, to have stable addresses, so in the future when
> more upstreams you are ready to add it to the operation.
Agreed, but then you have INTENTION to multi-home based on which you
should be able to obtain ASN under current policies.
> Also you may still have one upstream but you may be able to connect to
> a local Internet Exchange or even to a local partner via Private
In which case you're multi-homing and qualify for an ASN under the
> The requirement for Multihoming for requesting an ASN have been
> removed in other RIRs which in my view is a natural thing so I believe
> this is something that is not needed now a day as many aspects are
> different from when it was made in this way.
To be clear: I'm not against providing everyone that wants an ASN with
one. We now have 32-bit ASNs so there are currently one for every IPv4
address. In IPv6 there is one for every single /40 prefix (considering
that only a single /8 is currently available for use, or every /32 which
is the smallest allocation an LIR gets given). So I think there is
adequate available. When there were only 16-bit ASNs that was different.
Could you please explain the use-case where you're not multihoming where
having an ASN is beneficial?
> On 28/03/2019 10:07, Jaco Kroon wrote:
>> If you're not multihoming your upstream can simply point a static
>> route towards you. No need for an ASN.
>> Even if you're multihoming that's still possible, but in that case
>> you're more likely to want the control that having an ASN gives you.
>> Kind Regards,
>> On 2019/03/25 17:17, Fernando Frediani wrote:
>>> I want to give my support to the proposal for "Multhoming not
>>> required for ASN" (AFPUB-2019-ASN-DRAFT01).
>>> As the author states in the summary and justification now a days
>>> requiring Multihoming is something obsolete and nothing something
>>> really necessary.
>>> With the exhaustion of IPv4 it becomes increasing important,
>>> specially for newer companies to have their own IPv4 addresses as
>>> they will hardly be able to have any reasonable size of allocations
>>> from upstream providers as it used to be before. As also mentioned
>>> one may wishes to have their own allocation and stable addresses,
>>> will not depend from upstream providers and be able to announce
>>> their PI space.
>>> RPD mailing list
>>> RPD at afrinic.net
> RPD mailing list
> RPD at afrinic.net
RPD mailing list
RPD at afrinic.net
IPv4 is over
Are you ready for the new Internet ?
The IPv6 Company
This electronic message contains information which may be privileged or confidential. The information is intended to be for the exclusive use of the individual(s) named above and further non-explicilty authorized disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited and will be considered a criminal offense. If you are not the intended recipient be aware that any disclosure, copying, distribution or use of the contents of this information, even if partially, including attached files, is strictly prohibited, will be considered a criminal offense, so you must reply to the original sender to inform about this communication and delete it.
More information about the RPD